Nikon Coolpix AW120 real-world samples gallery

Nikon's Coolpix AW120 features a 16 megapixel sensor and is waterproof to 18m/59 ft. It offers a 24-120mm equiv. lens, along with built-in Wi-Fi and GPS. The AW120 will withstand a drop from 2m/6.6 ft and is freezeproof to -10° C/ 14° F. Among nearly all of its peers it offers the widest lens, though at F2.8-4.9 not as fast at the wide end as the Olympus TG-3's or Ricoh WG-4's.

Watch this space for our 2014 waterproof/tough camera roundup but until then...

BUT, TG-2's HDR function is the worst for all the cameras I know (not because it reduced to 3MP), and the Panorama mode is 200% useless. Both indicate TG-2 lack the image processing power (as the trade off, the 300+ battery life is good).

I wish TG-3 replace the Fake "A" mode with SPORT mode. Also I do not understand why it increased the MP...

@ DStudio, even my blind grandmother could tell those jpg's are utter garbage. They are basically smartphone quality and only look reasonable at browser size. The full size images are just pathetic and Nikon should feel embarrassed. Even at low ISO detail is smeared into oblivion. It fails in and out of the water, but this is is pretty much the case with every single UW camera based on crapulent tiny 1/2.33" sensors and second rate optics combined with fourth rate jpg engines.

All we need if for Sony to release an UW version of the RX100 and they'll own the market.

But I suspect your grandmother with good vision (perhaps wearing glasses) would say it's impressive how good it looks - "even close up." "It never looked this good in 4x6 (or rather 3 1/2 x5) prints!" Perhaps the blindness of a child of the digital age is at play.

The bottom line is the Olympus and Ricoh have the better lens. Then just choose which features and JPEG engine you want. The Nikon lens isn't performing well wide open - quite noticeable near the borders. The Canon lens is so much slower I'm not sure it's even a fair comparison - they're apparently embarrassed to even advertise their lens speed!

I got this camera and returned it after one week.Pictures are actually atrocious.It was a replacement for my Powershot D10, which died after 5 years. The AW120 generates large files with no detail, I miss the D10. I don't care about brands. The new Canon has also this crappy periscopic objective, and it's even slower.I know that we should not expect much from these tiny waterproof cameras, but can't we expect a 2014 camera to be, at least, as good as a 2011 camera ? WiFi and GPS are gadgets, but IQ just sucks, even under bright sunlight !!!

It looks like smartphone quality because smartphone quality increased a lot in recent years, not because the image quality of PS cameras is decreasing. Take off the waterproofing and I don't see it any worse than other cheap PS camera. Not that I like it or going to buy one, but it is pretty much comparable to everything in that price range.And to compare the quality with sony RX is just really off. The RX100M3 is $800, obviously it should give you better pics. If the RX is waterproof then we are talking about $1000 and that would be insane for a beach camera.

TG-2/3 andWG-3/4 are a stop faster than the Nikon, and the rest of the cameras in the obviously coming comparison are in very close to TG-850. Nothing low-end about it except the lens similar to the rest of "tough" cameras, unlike TG-1 etc which created a new class.